Lol, I did answer your question. The cost difference is obvious. Less storage will have a cost and more storage will cost more. I can't give exact figures. If your 90 minute RAW footage at 60fps exceeds the small storage then you'll have to afford more space.

Okay, I'll help.

You're spewing out thoughts that you cannot back up. You may be halfway right, but for the wrong reasons, and you have no idea how to get to where you think you're going here. Honestly, a few minutes with Google will tell you what you need to know.

If you're shooting on film, frames=feet=$. 60fps vs. 24fps. effectively more than doubles the cost (250% to be exact). With film, you pay per foot to shoot (purchasing film stock), you pay per foot to have it processed, and per foot to have it telecined. It's not likely these days that you'll pay per foot to have the final print since distribution is almost completely digital now. If you want a real example of the difference in cost of stock, a 100' reel of Kodak VISION3 200T 16mm film runs about $55. A 400' reel is about $220. There's no drop in per-foot price for buying more. Oh, and a 400' reel is about 11 minutes of shooting at 24fps. $220 for 11 minutes. Just to shoot 16mm (this doesn't even include processing and telecine). Up it to 60fps and that reel only goes about 4 minutes.

That's kind of a bad argument, though, because I don't know anyone shooting film at 60fps.

Now, in the digital world we're just talking about data storage. Camera cards are what they are, and unlike film can be cleared and reused. So, the first thing to look at is how much it costs to increase your storage space in post. A 4TB Thunderbolt drive from G-Tech is $300. So, let's assume (though it's not always the case) that 60fps requires 250% of the storage space that 24fps does. We'd need 10TB, and a 10TB Thunderbolt drive from G-Tech is $550. That's only a 50% cost increase in storage. In terms of production budget, that extra $150 is negligible. In other words, it's dirt cheap.

In RAW, yes, 60fps will eat up more data than 24p, though there are several flavors of RAW and 60p can be recorded without more-than-doubling storage needs. With other cameras/codecs (like Canon DSLR), 60fps is often relegated to a long-GOP codec while 30p and 24p are available in higher resolution, all I-frame codecs. So an EOS 80D actually requires more storage and a faster write speed to handle 1080p24 .MOV than it does to shoot 1080p60 .MP4.

But the moral of the story is that upping data storage by 250% doesn't cost so much that it's in any way cost prohibitive.

Quality very often cannot back up his statements. So the cost is negligible.
For a feature film (even an ultra-low budget) the cost difference is in the
neighborhood of $500. On a budget of even $10,000 that's 5% of the budget.
On a budget of $50,000 that's 1% of your total budget.

For comparison the cost of film on a ULB feature is often 40% of the total
budget. Double that percentage to shoot 60fps and it is an unnecessary
expense. To spend $1,100 (20TB) rather than $600 (8TB) on HD space isn't
always an unnecessary expense. You get 250% more space for $500.

When I say cost I mean storage. RAW 60fps footage will more than likely be more writing data than 24fps. That means more money on hard drive/memory space. So image the difference with 24 and 60fps for a feature film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quality

Even though 24fps is traditional it works and makes sense. It is also less costly than recording 60fps footage, so why the unnecessary expense.

I used prices for non-RAID drives, and came up with a difference of $150 for a feature. Pennies on a feature budget. Rik's prices are for RAID drives (more logical to use them for integrity of data storage), but still a drop in the bucket. No unnecessary expenses either way.

When he asked me to "imagine the difference" I saw that as a non-answer. I
didn't want to imagine, I wanted to know if he had anything to back up his
statement. Thanks again, Al for clearing that up for me.

So using non-RAID and doubling your storage suggestion the cost difference
in around $300. For a feature, that's nothing. A producer can save that $300
buy not buying coffee for the pre-production team the first week of work.

I do not disagree with you, Quality, about shooting 60fps. I, too, dislike the
look. But there is hardly a cost difference for a 90 minute RAW movie.